47. Integrity does not require impartiality or independence
Although impartiality and independence are seen as important qualities, it can be desirable for SPs to show bias. They may be required to take sides and be appointed to promote particular interests. Partiality can be justified on the basis of impartial and independent grounds, although this does not mean that SPs can ignore the interests of others or give themselves over to others.
In addition to a willingness to serve, many public sector codes of integrity state that impartiality and independence are important qualities, but is this always desirable for SPs? The answer is no. In some respects impartiality and independence are undesirable.
Let us begin by examining the above proposition for politicians. Politics is about choosing a party and factionalism. Politicians bind themselves to parties and work for them. Politicians with integrity are therefore faithful to their own parties: they stand up for their parties’ views, uphold their ideals, and follow their political programs. It would be inconsistent for politicians to renounce their parties, not to have anything to do with their programs, and to ignore party political agreements and pledges. Such politicians would hardly be paragons of fidelity or credibility. For politicians, taking sides and partiality are compatible with integrity.
For other SPs partiality can be just as important. SPs are appointed to stand for the interests of their position, institution, or area of service. This form of partiality is expected of them. Mayors should stand up for the interests of their own municipality in a regional context, governors for regional interests in a national context, and prime ministers for national interests in an international context. The idea is that if everyone stands up for the interests they are appointed to represent, this will then contribute to a good appraisal of those interests. This way, those who chose or appointed the SP can trust that their interests are well represented. Partiality can therefore be justified on the basis of impartial grounds. For this reason partiality is not only a right but also a duty.
Partiality does not mean that SPs can or should ignore the interests of others whom they do not represent. After all, integrity demands that people have an eye for the legitimate interests of others, as we saw in chapter 6 and elsewhere. Having an eye for these interests means taking them into account, involving and respecting them without necessarily standing up for them or making efforts for them. Furthermore, partiality should not prevent SPs from acting in conflict with the interests they serve and depend on. There may, for example, be other interests that weigh more heavily and demand priority above those that SPs represent. It may be necessary to sell decisions to your own supporters (such as voters, citizens, and colleagues) by arguing that acting in the interests of a greater or different good will eventually serve your own supporters too. However, this removes the ethical dimension of such action, as the interests of the supporters are not scarified.
Partiality does not demand giving up all impartiality and independence, entirely handing oneself over to others. American entertainer Will Rogers is skeptical about the extent to which SPs are independent. In his view there is no more independence in politics than there is in jail264 (in other words, very little). If SPs feel locked in, they should seriously ask themselves whether they can continue to act with integrity, and if not, whether this is a price they are willing to pay.